On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:09, Aiqun Yu (Maria) <quic_aiquny@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/19/2023 5:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 19/12/2023 10:36, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/19/2023 3:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 19/12/2023 01:31, Tengfei Fan wrote: > >>>> The address/size-cells in mdss_dsi1 node have not ranges and child also > >>>> have not reg, then this leads to dtc W=1 warnings: > >>> > >> Comments can be more readable: > >> "mdss_dsi1" node don't have "ranges" or child "reg" property, while it > >> have address/size-cells properties. This caused > >> "avoid_unnecessary_addr_size" warning from dtb check. > >> Remove address/size-cells properties for "mdss_dsi1" node. > >> > >>> I cannot parse it. Address/size cells never have ranges or children. > >>> They cannot have. These are uint32 properties. > >> Pls help to comment on the revised commit message. Every time I write a > >> commit message, also takes a while for me to double confirm whether > >> others can understand me correctly as well. Feel free to let us know if > >> it is not readable to you. It will help us as non-English native developers. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> sm8550.dtsi:2937.27-2992.6: Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc@0/display-subsystem@ae00000/dsi@ae96000: > >>>> unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>> > >>> I disagreed with the patch before. You resubmit it without really > >>> addressing my concerns. > >>> > >>> I am not sure if this is correct fix and I want to fix all of such > >>> errors (there are multiple of them) in the same way. Feel free to > >>> propose common solution based on arguments. > >> Per my understanding, "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node like "mdss_dsi1" > >> don't need to have address/size-cells properties. > > > > Just because dtc says so? And what about bindings? > I don't find any reason why "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node need to > have address/size-cells properties. Document Bindings should also be fixed. > > > >> Feel free to let us know whether there is different idea of > >> "address/size-cells" needed for the "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl" driver node. > > > > The bindings expressed that idea. If the binding is incorrect, fix the > > binding and the DTS. If the binding is correct, provide rationale why it > > somehow does not apply here etc. > Our plan is to fix the bindings as well. > > In case you have missed the question, I just re-place it here: > While there are about 22 different soc dtsi and it's document binding > files needed to be fixed. Shall we fix it for all qcom related soc usage > in one patch, or we'd better to split into different patches according > to soc specifically? Don't touch the bindings unless you understand what you are doing. Your patch will be NAKed. There can be a DSI panel attached to the DSI host, which means there is a need for #address-cells / #size-cells. Please stop wasting the time on dtc warning. The bindings (and the file) are correct. -- With best wishes Dmitry
